2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

A. Nonparty ○○○ was working at ○ University under the ○○ Private Teaching Institute of Nonparty 1 (hereinafter “○○ Private Teaching Institute”) and was serving in the said ○ University from October 1, 2003 after retirement on February 24, 199.

B. In order to execute the claim amounting to KRW 180,262,200 based on the authentic copy of a notarial deed of monetary loan for consumption with an executory power of ○○○○○○○○○ in 2003, the Plaintiff, a notary public holding the above Kim○○, obtained an order of seizure and assignment of the claim against the above ○○○○ Private Teaching Institute under ○○ District Court 2003TT616 on October 28, 2003. The above order of seizure and assignment of the claim was served on the above ○○ Private Teaching Institute, a debtor on November 4, 2003.

C. On September 13, 1999, the ○○ Tax Office, under the Defendant’s control, entered a third party obligor as “○ University,” and attached a claim, such as salary, etc., for the ○○○ Private Teaching Institute, on four occasions, including the debtor in arrears, on October 26, 1999, June 3, 2003, and September 20 of the same year, and notified the third party obligor to the ○ University. Meanwhile, the ○○ Tax Office, on October 27, 2005, entered the third party obligor as “○ Private Teaching Institute,” and notified the third party obligor of the attachment, and served the third party obligor on November 7, 2005.

D. On October 26, 2006, the ○○ Private Teaching Institute deposited benefits, etc. to be paid to the above Kim○○ by this court from October 26, 2004 to October 2006, based on Article 248(1) of the Civil Execution Act, and reported the reason for deposit to this court.

E. In allocating KRW 55,562,930 to be actually distributed on the date of distribution of the distribution procedure case No. 2006Ma3027 of this Court, which was implemented on March 16, 2007, the instant court set up a distribution schedule with the content that the Defendant, who was the seizure authority, distributes the entire amount of KRW 55,562,930 to the Defendant, who was the seizure authority, and that the Plaintiff did not fully distribute the amount to the Plaintiff, who was the full right holder, on the date of distribution. The Plaintiff raised an objection against the entire amount distributed to the Defendant on the date of distribution.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 to 10, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment on the parties' arguments

The plaintiff argued that the dividend of this case against the defendant should be revised as stated in the order, and that the defendant was granted business registration number to the ○○ University on September 13, 1999, June 3, 2003, and September 20 of the same year, all of the above Kim○ University's wage claims against the ○○ University's ○○ University on four occasions, including the above Kim○ University's wage claims, etc., and the third debtor was attached to the ○ University, and the above seizure is no longer effective. Since the defendant's attachment and notice on October 27, 2005 issued the plaintiff's assignment order and issued all the assignment order to the ○ University, and it cannot be asserted that the above distribution of this case against the defendant should be revised as stated in the above distribution schedule. Since the defendant asserted that the "○○ University's national tax computer system" was legitimate, it is stated that the above ○○ University's wage and salary income was registered with the ○○ University's ○ University's 3rd University.

Therefore, as seen above, the defendant's seizure and assignment order, which was issued by the plaintiff on or before November 4, 2003, on the third debtor's third debtor's ○○ University's wage claims, etc., can be acknowledged that all of the seizure and assignment orders issued by the plaintiff on or before November 4, 2003, stated the third debtor as ○○ University's non-private teaching institute's non-private teaching institute's non-private teaching institute's non-private teaching institute's non-private teaching institute's claims against ○○○○. The above seizure of the defendant's each of the third debtor's above is invalid because the third debtor's mistake of the third debtor. The defendant's electronic records or documents entered or prepared by the defendant are written on the data such as national tax computer system or deficit's property status list, or registered as ○○ University's business as ○○ University's business registration, and if all other creditors including the plaintiff except the defendant designated the third debtor as ○○ University's claim for provisional seizure or seizure, etc.

3. Conclusion

If so, the distribution of dividends against the defendant should be deleted as erroneous and should be corrected as distributing to the plaintiff. The plaintiff's claim in this case is with merit and it is so decided as per Disposition.